<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (9) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85756</link>
    <description>In excise valuation, the cost of separately invoiced electric motors used as indispensable components of industrial fans was held includible in the assessable value because the fans could not function without them and the motors formed an integral part of the finished product. The valuation principle applied was that the value of components and raw materials used in manufacture enters assessable value under central excise law, and the exemption-based distinction in Notification No. 120/75-C.E. did not alter that result. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the notices did not allege fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; the demand was therefore partly time-barred, with only the normal-period demand sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 18:30:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=122823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 225 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85756</link>
      <description>In excise valuation, the cost of separately invoiced electric motors used as indispensable components of industrial fans was held includible in the assessable value because the fans could not function without them and the motors formed an integral part of the finished product. The valuation principle applied was that the value of components and raw materials used in manufacture enters assessable value under central excise law, and the exemption-based distinction in Notification No. 120/75-C.E. did not alter that result. On limitation, the extended period could not be invoked because the notices did not allege fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; the demand was therefore partly time-barred, with only the normal-period demand sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>